Which SciFi ttrpg has the largest player base?

[Calthropstu]

Skylark.

I think inventing space opera counts.


I mean, it's not like LotR was really that massive, stories were insisted by the pulps just as much.

LOTR had MASSIVE influence on every other fantasy author. Look at all the great fantasy authors since then. Even many that discarded elves/dwarves kept a tolienesque vibe. I haven't read much recent fantasy, but I read HUNDREDS way back. Even the Wheel of Time felt tolkienesque despite its lack of elves.
And the big ones that don't feel tolkienesque just kinda bore the hell out of me. I tried reading Game of Thrones and it was horrible. Not sure how people liked it.
So I get what the others are saying. I read lots of great Sci Fi as well. But nothing really stood out as being quintessential to the genre. Rather, there were a few that kinda spawned sub-genres. But nothing that affected the base genre itself.

[Batcathat]

And the big ones that don't feel tolkienesque just kinda bore the hell out of me.

Wait, you're bored by the ones that aren't all from more or less the same mold? That's pretty much the opposite of my reaction to the Tolkien influence. Matter of individual taste, I suppose.

Other than that, I agree with everything. Sci-fi have no lack of influential authors, but even amongst the giants (Asimov, Clarke, etc.) I don't think anyone had the same amount of influence as Tolkien. Which is a good thing for the genre, I think.

[Anonymouswizard]

LOTR had MASSIVE influence on every other fantasy author. Look at all the great fantasy authors since then. Even many that discarded elves/dwarves kept a tolienesque vibe. I haven't read much recent fantasy, but I read HUNDREDS way back. Even the Wheel of Time felt tolkienesque despite its lack of elves.
And the big ones that don't feel tolkienesque just kinda bore the hell out of me. I tried reading Game of Thrones and it was horrible. Not sure how people liked it.
So I get what the others are saying. I read lots of great Sci Fi as well. But nothing really stood out as being quintessential to the genre. Rather, there were a few that kinda spawned sub-genres. But nothing that affected the base genre itself.

Yeah, of course. Heroic Fantasy, Urban Fantasy, Dark Fantasy, Wuxia, and all the other fantasy subgenres without influence from Tolkien don't exist? Yes, Tolkien head a massive influence on high fantasy, and partially inspired the tendency to have medieval European settings, but it's not like all of fantasy suddenly changed ship to follow his lead. I'm fairly certain the pulp fantasy subgenre didn't change one bit in response to him.

So yes, comparing him to Doc Smith is pretty accurate. Tolkien created the modern high fantasy with The Lord of the Rings. Smith created modern space opera with The Skylark of Space. And since Smith we've had many great science fiction authors, just off the top of my head at the very least the following: Heinlein, Asimov, Peter F. Hamilton, Joe Haldeman, Alastair Reynolds, Webber. Plus other authors writing in other genres of science fiction, just like how Tolkien didn't suddenly changed how all heroic fantasy or Wuxia was written.

Doc Smith does have the influence over science fiction that Tolkien had. But people don't want it because they don't want to admit just how massive a genre fantasy is.

[Batcathat]

Yeah, of course. Heroic Fantasy, Urban Fantasy, Dark Fantasy, Wuxia, and all the other fantasy subgenres without influence from Tolkien don't exist?

You're probably right about wuxia, but other than that I'd say Tolkien have absolutely had influence on all the genres you mention.

But sure, I can agree that there are subgenres of fantasy where his influence is non-existant or negligible but the subgenres where his massive influence is felt make up such a huge part of the genre as a whole (at least in the Western world, I'm not familiar enough with the fantasy genre in other cultural spheres to say for certain, but I imagine Tolkien's influence would be much smaller there) that no sci-fi author can compare.

Doc Smith does have the influence over science fiction that Tolkien had. But people don't want it because they don't want to admit just how massive a genre fantasy is.

Ah, yes. The old "people actually know I'm right, they just don't want to admit it" argument. Always charming.

[Calthropstu]

Yeah, of course. Heroic Fantasy, Urban Fantasy, Dark Fantasy, Wuxia, and all the other fantasy subgenres without influence from Tolkien don't exist? Yes, Tolkien head a massive influence on high fantasy, and partially inspired the tendency to have medieval European settings, but it's not like all of fantasy suddenly changed ship to follow his lead. I'm fairly certain the pulp fantasy subgenre didn't change one bit in response to him.

So yes, comparing him to Doc Smith is pretty accurate. Tolkien created the modern high fantasy with The Lord of the Rings. Smith created modern space opera with The Skylark of Space. And since Smith we've had many great science fiction authors, just off the top of my head at the very least the following: Heinlein, Asimov, Peter F. Hamilton, Joe Haldeman, Alastair Reynolds, Webber. Plus other authors writing in other genres of science fiction, just like how Tolkien didn't suddenly changed how all heroic fantasy or Wuxia was written.

Doc Smith does have the influence over science fiction that Tolkien had. But people don't want it because they don't want to admit just how massive a genre fantasy is.

I've read a bit of dark and urban fantasy. Stuff set in say the Shadowrun universe feels pretty tolkienesque. And the best dark fantasy I've read had some major tolkien elements as well.
I have honestly never heard of wuxia. And after taking a look at it via google, I realize I have in fact seen some of it in the form of chinese animation. Which is absolutely terrible. (Seriously, I watched a chinese animation stop a sword battle so the main character could show off his go skills. And the whole thing kept switching to some horrendously made characters who were supposedly gods betting on who would win what. Really dumb.) But preference aside, gee a genre from an entirely different culture not having our stuff in it? Yeah, kind of expected.

So even in your "other genres" Tolkien's influence can be felt.

[Anonymouswizard]

Next you're all going to tell me that characters in science fiction don't build spaceships, go to other star systems, fight interstellar wars, wear powered armour, fight with guns emitting beams of energy, train telepaths as government operatives, travel to other universes, befriend other races and form shares political entities with them, or anything else? Oh, and people from a high gravity planet who are stronger because of it, he did that at least twice in separate series.

No, it's just Tolkien who's allowed to massively influence a genre, and then we have to define everything so that is true no matter what. Shadowrun's Dwarves, Orks, and Trolls were never Tolkienesque, although they were indirectly descended via D&D (which took more from pulp fantasy, but I'm supposed to pretend that the bloody obvious is untrue). Heck only a handful of Shadowrun Elves feel Tolkienesque. But honestly, the only works I've actually read that felt Tolkienesque were Tolkien, possibly A Song of Ice and Fire, and maybe some dark fantasy. The other Tolkien-inspired works I've read seen to have missed the point to steal the window dressing.

Smith being less well known to the general public doesn't mean he wasn't as influential. Again, he pretty much literally created Space Opera, that genre most of the big popular science fiction franchises are in (no Smith no Star Wars, no Star Trek, no Babylon 5, probably no Doctor Who or Blake's 7).

[Batcathat]

The other Tolkien-inspired works I've read seen to have missed the point to steal the window dressing.

That we can agree on, at least. If everyone influenced by Tolkien would actually do what he did, rather than copy some of the specifics with barely a thought about why, I wouldn't mind it as much.

[Calthropstu]

Next you're all going to tell me that characters in science fiction don't build spaceships, go to other star systems, fight interstellar wars, wear powered armour, fight with guns emitting beams of energy, train telepaths as government operatives, travel to other universes, befriend other races and form shares political entities with them, or anything else? Oh, and people from a high gravity planet who are stronger because of it, he did that at least twice in separate series.

No, it's just Tolkien who's allowed to massively influence a genre, and then we have to define everything so that is true no matter what. Shadowrun's Dwarves, Orks, and Trolls were never Tolkienesque, although they were indirectly descended via D&D (which took more from pulp fantasy, but I'm supposed to pretend that the bloody obvious is untrue). Heck only a handful of Shadowrun Elves feel Tolkienesque. But honestly, the only works I've actually read that felt Tolkienesque were Tolkien, possibly A Song of Ice and Fire, and maybe some dark fantasy. The other Tolkien-inspired works I've read seen to have missed the point to steal the window dressing.

Smith being less well known to the general public doesn't mean he wasn't as influential. Again, he pretty much literally created Space Opera, that genre most of the big popular science fiction franchises are in (no Smith no Star Wars, no Star Trek, no Babylon 5, probably no Doctor Who or Blake's 7).

First let me say this: Thank you for mentioning him. I may have to read some of this. But before today, I had never heard of him.
But judging from what I have read so far, while there were elements of skylark and lensman in other space operas, the permeation is not as deep.
Still, from the wikipedia article, it looks like he not only influenced authors, but also scientists and military officers as well. Apparently one of the ideas in his books led directly to the usage of tech in ww2. As a person very interested in that time period, I will definitrly be looking at his books.

[Cluedrew]

On Tolkien: I think Tolkien's influence over fantasy is probably less than some would credit with for two reasons:

• He didn't invent most of the stuff in his books. He drew on a massive body of existing works and a lot of what was drawn from his work was what he drew from existing works. Elves and dwarves already existed, as did dragons and special swords and cursed artifacts. He put his own spin on some of them yes, but that gets into the next point.
• Fantasy has a lot of common iconography that is used across the sub-genres even though it can be used very differently. Probably because of all the mythology people have to draw on. But a Lord of the Rings elf isn't the same thing as a Wesnoth elf which is different from an Inheritance Cycle elf and all of those are different from a Dragon Prince elf.

In conclusion I wish people would stop acting like D&D is generic fantasy.

OK that was a jump, but things having the same imagery doesn't mean you can treat them the same.

[Calthropstu]

On Tolkien: I think Tolkien's influence over fantasy is probably less than some would credit with for two reasons:

• He didn't invent most of the stuff in his books. He drew on a massive body of existing works and a lot of what was drawn from his work was what he drew from existing works. Elves and dwarves already existed, as did dragons and special swords and cursed artifacts. He put his own spin on some of them yes, but that gets into the next point.
• Fantasy has a lot of common iconography that is used across the sub-genres even though it can be used very differently. Probably because of all the mythology people have to draw on. But a Lord of the Rings elf isn't the same thing as a Wesnoth elf which is different from an Inheritance Cycle elf and all of those are different from a Dragon Prince elf.

In conclusion I wish people would stop acting like D&D is generic fantasy.

OK that was a jump, but things having the same imagery doesn't mean you can treat them the same.

To be fair, I think the whole "tolkienism" thing needs to branch off into its own thread because I fail to see its relevance to "which sci-fi game has the largest player base." Pretty sure "tolkien" is not the correct answer.

[Cluedrew]

To Calthropstu: Is there anything about my post in particular that made you quote it or did it just happen to be the newest post in the thread? But I agree in a sense and am in fact tying this back to the main topic. Not the original "which is largest" (they answered that to the best of their abilities page one) but the follow up question of "Why isn't there a clear winner like in fantasy?" The first part comes down to historical happenstance. The second part is an evolving theory I was working on and since my last post.

Basically fantasy has a much larger set of common imagery to draw on. This common imagery hides the more meaningful differences between settings in a way that doesn't really happen in sci-fi. Its always a matter of degrees - and you could argue there is such a thing as a generic magic system - but I would argue that if you examine the stories told underneath that common imagery you will find significant differences. Urban fantasy is not just "Tolkienism in the modern day" (there may be a story that fits that description, but not the whole genre).

And this all gets back to the idea that D&D has a tendency to get over applied, attempting to cover many fantasy-variants that it is not suited for. Now this is probably more a result of D&D's popularity than a cause of it, but it probably creates a feedback loop in there.

[Jason]

Doc Smith was hugely influential, but is he still read? Not like Tolkien is.
I've read through Lensmen twice (all 7 books), but I doubt many other people on this forum have read it even once.

[Mechalich]

Doc Smith was hugely influential, but is he still read? Not like Tolkien is.
I've read through Lensmen twice (all 7 books), but I doubt many other people on this forum have read it even once.

Speculative fiction set in the 'future' - whether science fiction or space fantasy - tends to age fairly poorly compared to fantasy, which is in many ways the most timeless of all genres. After all, insofar as mythologically-framed stories qualify as fantasy, like The Odyssey, the include some of the oldest works known to humans. Beowulf - which is absolutely a tale of fantasy - is at least a thousand years old and is still widely read today. LotR takes very strong cues from the mythological and saga style of fantasy because that was Tolkien's expertise, which makes it particularly durable even compared to its various contemporaries due to a high level of universality. Compare the contemporaneous Chronicles of Narnia, which seems to be gradually fading as a cultural touchstone because it is a highly specific allegory and that connection has recently grown weaker in the English-speaking world.

Stories set in the future are vulnerable to technological change. In particular they are vulnerable to having plots that depend on the absence of some technology unknown to the author that eventually becomes extremely commonplace to the audience. Communications technologies such as cell phones and observation technologies such as surveillance cameras are too big ones. When this happens, a story becomes oddly anachronistic despite being set in the nominal future and that reduces its overall appeal.

[Batcathat]

On Tolkien: I think Tolkien's influence over fantasy is probably less than some would credit with for two reasons:

• He didn't invent most of the stuff in his books. He drew on a massive body of existing works and a lot of what was drawn from his work was what he drew from existing works. Elves and dwarves already existed, as did dragons and special swords and cursed artifacts. He put his own spin on some of them yes, but that gets into the next point.
• Fantasy has a lot of common iconography that is used across the sub-genres even though it can be used very differently. Probably because of all the mythology people have to draw on. But a Lord of the Rings elf isn't the same thing as a Wesnoth elf which is different from an Inheritance Cycle elf and all of those are different from a Dragon Prince elf.

This is true, but Tolkien's spin on a lot of things became pretty much the interpretation of them. Elves are a very good example of that – Tolkien's elves are fairly different from the elves that came before while almost all elves that came after are either a carbon copy of Tolkien's elves or some sort of deliberate subversion of them. There are exceptions, of course, (the most common probably being the ones that draw from classical fairy tropes instead) but I'd say they're a pretty small minority.

Not to mention the fact that Tolkien's the reason elves are such a common sight in fantasy to begin with, which is a huge sign of his influence in itself.

To be fair, I think the whole "tolkienism" thing needs to branch off into its own thread because I fail to see its relevance to "which sci-fi game has the largest player base." Pretty sure "tolkien" is not the correct answer.

On one hand you're right, on the other hand the "most popular sci-fi game" discussion seemed to have pretty much run its course and it wouldn't exactly be the first time a thread went wildly off-topic. Still, if anyone wants to create a new thread for the Tolkien stuff, I'd be happy to continue the discussion there.

[Jason]

I found a list that claims to be based on DriveThruRPG data for best selling titles of 2020 that came out in 2020.

Best selling sci-fi RPGs of 2020
(That were published in 2020)

1. Cyberpunk RED by R. Talsorian Games Inc.
2. Ultramodern5 REDUX (5th Edition) by Dias Ex Machina Games.
3. Secrets of the Crucible by Edge.
4. Dissident Whispers by Tuesday Knight Games.
5. Star Trek Adventures: Klingon Core Rulebook by Modiphius.
6. BLASTER: Volume 1 by BLASTER.
7. Star Trek Adventures: Gamma Quadrant Sourcebook by Modiphius.
8. Shadowrun: Firing Squad (Core Combat Rulebook) by Catalyst Game Labs.
9. Star Trek Adventures: Delta Quadrant Sourcebook by Modiphius.
10. BattleTech: Technical Readout: Golden Century by Catalyst Game Labs

Since Modiphius' Strar Trek has three titles in the top 10 it would seem to be hot right now.

[Willie the Duck]

Doc Smith does have the influence over science fiction that Tolkien had. But people don't want it because they don't want to admit just how massive a genre fantasy is.

Next you're all going to tell me...

No, it's just Tolkien who's allowed

For future consideration, neither putting words in the mouths of others, self-declared persecution (only-Tolkien-allowed), nor secret-silent-majority agreement are great ways of convincing audiences larger than oneself.

Speculative fiction set in the 'future' - whether science fiction or space fantasy - tends to age fairly poorly compared to fantasy, which is in many ways the most timeless of all genres. After all, insofar as mythologically-framed stories qualify as fantasy, like The Odyssey, the include some of the oldest works known to humans. Beowulf - which is absolutely a tale of fantasy - is at least a thousand years old and is still widely read today. LotR takes very strong cues from the mythological and saga style of fantasy because that was Tolkien's expertise, which makes it particularly durable even compared to its various contemporaries due to a high level of universality. Compare the contemporaneous Chronicles of Narnia, which seems to be gradually fading as a cultural touchstone because it is a highly specific allegory and that connection has recently grown weaker in the English-speaking world.

Stories set in the future are vulnerable to technological change. In particular they are vulnerable to having plots that depend on the absence of some technology unknown to the author that eventually becomes extremely commonplace to the audience. Communications technologies such as cell phones and observation technologies such as surveillance cameras are too big ones. When this happens, a story becomes oddly anachronistic despite being set in the nominal future and that reduces its overall appeal.

Very true, however I think Jason is onto something. Beyond aging, even BitD, Tolkien stayed at the top of the pack in his field than Smith did. Within a year or two of most of Smith's contributions to his genre, there were other authors writing similar works that at least many fans of the genre considered superior (or at least more to their preference), to the point where many sci-fi readers could have read works influenced by him without ever reading his work well within the decade of his books' release. I'm not really sure that this implies about each respective author's influence, but I'd say in terms of eyes-on-page, I think it's more than just Smith's work having aged out with changes in technology that explains the difference. I do think more people should read Lensmen. They are fun books, regardless of any grand spot in history.

[Jason]

Very true, however I think Jason is onto something. Beyond aging, even BitD, Tolkien stayed at the top of the pack in his field than Smith did. Within a year or two of most of Smith's contributions to his genre, there were other authors writing similar works that at least many fans of the genre considered superior (or at least more to their preference), to the point where many sci-fi readers could have read works influenced by him without ever reading his work well within the decade of his books' release. I'm not really sure that this implies about each respective author's influence, but I'd say in terms of eyes-on-page, I think it's more than just Smith's work having aged out with changes in technology that explains the difference. I do think more people should read Lensmen. They are fun books, regardless of any grand spot in history.

I think modern readers are as likely to feel that Smith's characters are one-dimensional and his view of male/female relationships is juvenile as they are to grumble over scientists using slide rules. There is fun stuff in them, but they are tales of their time in more than just the technology on display. I've heard the literally incorruptible Lensmen described as boy scouts by modern critics.
Tolkien's characters and themes have more depth to them.

Dune might be still popular today in part because it's technology is deliberately restricted by the cultural prejudices of the setting, but it also has timeless themes (religion and the messiah complex are not going away anytime soon) and morally complex characters.

[Willie the Duck]

I think modern readers are as likely to feel that Smith's characters are one-dimensional and his view of male/female relationships is juvenile as they are to grumble over scientists using slide rules. There is fun stuff in them, but they are tales of their time in more than just the technology on display. I've heard the literally incorruptible Lensmen described as boy scouts by modern critics.
Tolkien's characters and themes have more depth to them.

Dune might be still popular today in part because it's technology is deliberately restricted by the cultural prejudices of the setting, but it also has timeless themes (religion and the messiah complex are not going away anytime soon) and morally complex characters.

Oh, absolutely. Lensmen is not unlike H Rider Haggard's Allan Quatermain stories -- an interesting window into a very foreign-feeling time with different values. Agree with regards to Dune.

[Jason]

DriveThruRPG also has metal awards for best sellers on the site. Adamantium is the top tier, and there are only 116 Adamantium-level products.
I see the AD&D 1st edition books here, and the Rules Cyclopedia. SciFi games here include Cyberpunk Red, Alien, Stars Without Number, the Star Trek Adventures core rulebook, Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0, Shadowrun 5th edition, and Shadowrun 4th edition.
Pazio doesn't put their stuff on this site, so Starfinder is absent. FFG Star Wars is also absent because there are no official .pdfs for sale from that line (licensing issue).
The Mongoose Traveller 2nd Ed core rulebook is a Mithral seller, which is the level just below Adamantium.

For generic systems that can do Sci Fi I also see Savage Worlds Adventure Edition, the Genesys core rulebook, and the FATE core book in the Adamantium sellers.

[Anonymouswizard]

DriveThruRPG also has metal awards for best sellers on the site. Adamantium is the top tier, and there are only 116 Adamantium-level products.
I see the AD&D 1st edition books here, and the Rules Cyclopedia. SciFi games here include Cyberpunk Red, Alien, Stars Without Number, the Star Trek Adventures core rulebook, Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0, Shadowrun 5th edition, and Shadowrun 4th edition.
Pazio doesn't put their stuff on this site, so Starfinder is absent. FFG Star Wars is also absent because there are no official .pdfs for sale from that line (licensing issue).
The Mongoose Traveller 2nd Ed core rulebook is a Mithral seller, which is the level just below Adamantium.

For generic systems that can do Sci Fi I also see Savage Worlds Adventure Edition, the Genesys core rulebook, and the FATE core book in the Adamantium sellers.

Both Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and, more importantly to this discussion, Warhammer 40,000: Wrath & Glory are also on the Adamantine list, which means that the 40k games are still in the running (if we're not classing them as fantasy). Although I'll note that the previous WH40kRP games are not in the list, which you can take as you like.

Which means that the most popular that we can get decent numbers for are Cyberpunk (both old and new), Stars Without Number, Star Trek Adventures, Shadowrun, and Warhammer 40k, with Starfinder and Star Wars likely also in that list. It still doesn't tell us the active player base, if I get a game off the ground soon it might be a few more players for Starfinder or Wrath & Glory, but it's also possible that I might end up running something more niche like Those Dark Places, Eldritch Skies, or possibly Unknown Armies.